Why is it Doc's duty to take crap from people that attack others on

[Guest guest]

Hello William, and thank you for your reply.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear- as I stated in my post,

in my opinion the hostility was conveyed through the

use of capital letters. I have never met anyone who

didnt associate the capital letter used in an email as

" yelling " . Certainly there is evidence of the

writer's true feelings about the subject contained

within his choice and execution of " nic-naming " her

" sweety-pie " or the like.

 

I do not know and have never met Doc, nor do I know

the lady in question; therefore I believe I would have

a much more objective point of view, even perhaps more

objective than yours. It would seem that my criteria

defining a " personal attack " is different from yours.

I'm sorry that you felt compelled to try to puzzle out

my reasoning, in the future just ask and I will be

happy to tell you.

Simply:

I saw someone over-reacting and pointed it out.

Ironically, I see the over-reaction as being caused by

an over-reaction--you did mention stones I believe.

You are more perceptive than you know.

 

I also considered the language of her reply to be

inappropriate, and I thought about adding that to my

original post but I wanted to keep the focus on what I

was addressing which was the difference in

perspective. To add anything else would just throw up

a lot of smoke without actually addressing the issue.

I like to keep ahold of the subject.

 

I agree with you that it is not " Doc's duty " to solve

anything for anyone--it is our own

responsibility--*however*--Doc made his answer I

assume of his own free will and therefore; even if it

was not his " duty " to interact I remind you that it

*was* his choice--again, in a semi-public forum it is

understood that people will respond. Nevertheless, I

do not recall actually suggesting that he should or

should not put up with anything, I feel that that

interpretation is subject to your personal filtering.

 

Nor did I address what Doc deems appropriate to do in

the future, and he did not mention " remote viewing " as

his method of testing; only the test he included and

wondered if she could intuit out of the post.

I do not know Doc, all I have to create my vision of

him comes from his writing in these forums. I can

tell you that it is my sense that he is watching this

thread *very* carefully. Other than that, I don't

refute anything you say he does, but I do think it's

irrelevant to the argument which is that I thought his

reply was a little strong.

I remember reading something about " twisted

perceptions " and it is my opinion that for someone who

espouses a philosophy dependant on the personal point

of view, there should be more sensitivity and

awareness of conflicts of interpretation--lest they be

themselves guilty of that which they revile.

 

I hope this clears up your questions. Thank you again

for your time.

-Deborah

 

I don't know about a firestorm but I am curious to

where you think

Doc was aggressive in his reply to her. I've included

it below. I

personally think that you are throwing stones at the

Doc for reasons

of your own. I've no clue what your reasons are. Doc

does state in

his introductory letter to all that join, " no personal

attacks " , and

Janice did purposefully do personal attacks.

What Doc did was attempt to privately give her his

guidelines for

posting. She came back with " how many woman have you

fucked " . That

does seem that she viciously attacked him.

Granted Janice has a problem. I'm curious why you

think that it's

Doc's fault, or Doc's duty to solve it for her? No

where did I see

aggression on Doc's part. Maybe you should look at

your own mind

reads. Talking about mind reads, you do know that Doc

is

accomplished at Remote viewing? Maybe he saw something

that you do

not see and got rid of the problem before it

escalated?

William

[Guest guest]

Deb,

I realize that you do not know Doc but you must be aware that hehas a very rigid rules structure and a keen sense of what's inappropriate.

 

This is his list after all and we all agree to follow those rules.

 

You may have missed the point that Doc never once called Janice "SweetiePie" to her personally, it was only after the fact and in retelling the story to the groupthat he referred to her as "Sweetie Pie". That was after she had shown her real agenda. His reponse to her was not hostile or aggressive, but to-the-point.

 

I'm not sure where you got that Doc is "someone who espouses a philosophy dependant on the personal point of view"

Doc's philosophy is more of "find out what works, test it and thenuse it to "Get Shit Done", then teach it to others". If you want to

learn, fine, if you don't, fine. If you do, you play by his rules.

 

I agree with William that I think that you are throwing stones at

Doc for reasons other then what is being talked about in this thread.

 

I'm here to learn and get better at what I do.

I DO know Doc and he is the MOST AMAZING and GIFTED MAN you will EVER meet.

I would encourage you to do whatever you need to do to meet Doc

in person.

 

Lillie

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of DebSaturday, September 02, 2006 6:36 PM Subject: Re: Why is it Doc's duty to take crap from people that attack others on

 

Hello William, and thank you for your reply.I'm sorry if I wasn't clear- as I stated in my post,in my opinion the hostility was conveyed through theuse of capital letters. I have never met anyone whodidnt associate the capital letter used in an email as"yelling". Certainly there is evidence of thewriter's true feelings about the subject containedwithin his choice and execution of "nic-naming" her"sweety-pie" or the like. I do not know and have never met Doc, nor do I knowthe lady in question; therefore I believe I would havea much more objective point of view, even perhaps moreobjective than yours. It would seem that my criteriadefining a "personal attack" is different from yours.I'm sorry that you felt compelled to try to puzzle outmy reasoning, in the future just ask and I will behappy to tell you.Simply:I saw someone over-reacting and pointed it out. Ironically, I see the over-reaction as being caused byan over-reaction--you did mention stones I believe. You are more perceptive than you know.I also considered the language of her reply to beinappropriate, and I thought about adding that to myoriginal post but I wanted to keep the focus on what Iwas addressing which was the difference inperspective. To add anything else would just throw upa lot of smoke without actually addressing the issue. I like to keep ahold of the subject.I agree with you that it is not "Doc's duty" to solveanything for anyone--it is our ownresponsibility--*however*--Doc made his answer Iassume of his own free will and therefore; even if itwas not his "duty" to interact I remind you that it*was* his choice--again, in a semi-public forum it isunderstood that people will respond. Nevertheless, Ido not recall actually suggesting that he should orshould not put up with anything, I feel that thatinterpretation is subject to your personal filtering.Nor did I address what Doc deems appropriate to do inthe future, and he did not mention "remote viewing" ashis method of testing; only the test he included andwondered if she could intuit out of the post.I do not know Doc, all I have to create my vision ofhim comes from his writing in these forums. I cantell you that it is my sense that he is watching thisthread *very* carefully. Other than that, I don'trefute anything you say he does, but I do think it'sirrelevant to the argument which is that I thought hisreply was a little strong.I remember reading something about "twistedperceptions" and it is my opinion that for someone whoespouses a philosophy dependant on the personal pointof view, there should be more sensitivity andawareness of conflicts of interpretation--lest they bethemselves guilty of that which they revile.I hope this clears up your questions. Thank you againfor your time.-DeborahI don't know about a firestorm but I am curious towhere you think Doc was aggressive in his reply to her. I've includedit below. I personally think that you are throwing stones at theDoc for reasons of your own. I've no clue what your reasons are. Docdoes state in his introductory letter to all that join, "no personalattacks", and Janice did purposefully do personal attacks.What Doc did was attempt to privately give her hisguidelines for posting. She came back with "how many woman have youfucked". That does seem that she viciously attacked him.Granted Janice has a problem. I'm curious why youthink that it's Doc's fault, or Doc's duty to solve it for her? Nowhere did I see aggression on Doc's part. Maybe you should look atyour own mind reads. Talking about mind reads, you do know that Docis accomplished at Remote viewing? Maybe he saw somethingthat you do not see and got rid of the problem before itescalated?William

[Guest guest]

I’ve been reading and rereading the original exchange between Doc and Janice and I don’t see where the “overreaction” is taking place. Was it ONLY the use of capital letters? Did you notice Doc only capitalized certain words...and those words were used to emphasize a point?

 

Also you mention in your latest post that you never suggested Doc “should or should not put up with anything” yet in your original post you say “Better to have met

this lady with compassion than to have thrown a vague " test " at her and then belittle her for not responding.” There seems to be a contradiction here, would you mind explaining what you mean?

 

Or how about explaining why you feel such an obviously spiteful, negative influence like Janice deserves any compassion at all? Personally I feel just by giving her a chance to explain herself (what you call a “vague test” which I don’t find vague at all...he asked for an explanation, she came back with “how many girls have you fucked?”) he was giving her more than her fair share of compassion.

 

She posted bullshit to the list, he gives her a second chance, she comes back with more bullshit...what other “compassion” does she deserve?

 

-M

 

On 9/2/06 4:35 PM, " Deb " <geminitrader wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hello William, and thank you for your reply.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear- as I stated in my post,

in my opinion the hostility was conveyed through the

use of capital letters. I have never met anyone who

didnt associate the capital letter used in an email as

" yelling " . Certainly there is evidence of the

writer's true feelings about the subject contained

within his choice and execution of " nic-naming " her

" sweety-pie " or the like.

 

I do not know and have never met Doc, nor do I know

the lady in question; therefore I believe I would have

a much more objective point of view, even perhaps more

objective than yours. It would seem that my criteria

defining a " personal attack " is different from yours.

I'm sorry that you felt compelled to try to puzzle out

my reasoning, in the future just ask and I will be

happy to tell you.

Simply:

I saw someone over-reacting and pointed it out.

Ironically, I see the over-reaction as being caused by

an over-reaction--you did mention stones I believe.

You are more perceptive than you know.

 

I also considered the language of her reply to be

inappropriate, and I thought about adding that to my

original post but I wanted to keep the focus on what I

was addressing which was the difference in

perspective. To add anything else would just throw up

a lot of smoke without actually addressing the issue.

I like to keep ahold of the subject.

 

I agree with you that it is not " Doc's duty " to solve

anything for anyone--it is our own

responsibility--*however*--Doc made his answer I

assume of his own free will and therefore; even if it

was not his " duty " to interact I remind you that it

*was* his choice--again, in a semi-public forum it is

understood that people will respond. Nevertheless, I

do not recall actually suggesting that he should or

should not put up with anything, I feel that that

interpretation is subject to your personal filtering.

 

Nor did I address what Doc deems appropriate to do in

the future, and he did not mention " remote viewing " as

his method of testing; only the test he included and

wondered if she could intuit out of the post.

I do not know Doc, all I have to create my vision of

him comes from his writing in these forums. I can

tell you that it is my sense that he is watching this

thread *very* carefully. Other than that, I don't

refute anything you say he does, but I do think it's

irrelevant to the argument which is that I thought his

reply was a little strong.

I remember reading something about " twisted

perceptions " and it is my opinion that for someone who

espouses a philosophy dependant on the personal point

of view, there should be more sensitivity and

awareness of conflicts of interpretation--lest they be

themselves guilty of that which they revile.

 

I hope this clears up your questions. Thank you again

for your time.

-Deborah

 

I don't know about a firestorm but I am curious to

where you think

Doc was aggressive in his reply to her. I've included

it below. I

personally think that you are throwing stones at the

Doc for reasons

of your own. I've no clue what your reasons are. Doc

does state in

his introductory letter to all that join, " no personal

attacks " , and

Janice did purposefully do personal attacks.

What Doc did was attempt to privately give her his

guidelines for

posting. She came back with " how many woman have you

fucked " . That

does seem that she viciously attacked him.

Granted Janice has a problem. I'm curious why you

think that it's

Doc's fault, or Doc's duty to solve it for her? No

where did I see

aggression on Doc's part. Maybe you should look at

your own mind

reads. Talking about mind reads, you do know that Doc

is

accomplished at Remote viewing? Maybe he saw something

that you do

not see and got rid of the problem before it

escalated?

William

 

 

[Guest guest]

im not sure what is creating this communication block, I admit I'm not used to

having this

much trouble getting my point across.

I'm going to try one more time, if you'll all bare with me here....

 

What I said was that I thought Doc's email came across as harsh and I gave my

reasons

why.

You all demand reasons, I gave reasons--which were quickly invalidated; " Oh no,

That's

not right " , " sorry but you're wrong " , " You must have some other hidden

agenda " ...etc.

Well, if these reasons are the basis behind my opinions than they are right--for

me--

period.

" Use what works " is a phrase associated with Huna--a discipline that I have my

grounding

in. Another phrase is " The World is What You Think It Is " --meaning a number of

things;

one of which is that everyone's perception of their world is their " truth " .

That's where the

connection to respecting another's personal truths came in as I am aware that

Doc knows

a great deal about Huna too.

 

My impression is that Great People are often unaware of how sensitive others can

be, not

that they're cruel at all, just focused on other things. I have dealt with

people like that all

my life, and they do sometimes need a gentle reminder not to " steam roller " over

another

person who might not be as sharp as they are. Understanding both sides of an

issue is a

strength and a problem but I would rather be this way.

 

So that's why I wrote what I did. If I see something else I feel could have

been done

another way I will question that too. You can do what you want with the opinion

or

nothing, that's your choice.

The root of the issue is simply that I gave an opinion which others didnt like.

Everything else was added by another writer; and I mean *everything*. I never

said that

Doc didnt have the right to run the board as he sees fit. I never said that

Janice's language

was acceptable, I never said that Doc should take crap from anyone or anything.

I gave an opinion, just an opinion, no rocks, no slander, just an opinion--maybe

it erred

on the side of tolerance but that's all it was.

How in the world could I have an " agenda " if I've never EVER met the man, and

yes, THAT

was yelling--do with it, and me, as you will.

 

That's it.

 

 

 

 

, " Lillie Reibold "

<lillie

wrote:

>

>

> Deb,

>

> I realize that you do not know Doc but you must be aware that he

> has a very rigid rules structure and a keen sense of what's inappropriate.

>

> This is his list after all and we all agree to follow those rules.

>

> You may have missed the point that Doc never once called Janice " Sweetie

> Pie " to her personally, it was only after the fact and in retelling the

> story to the group

> that he referred to her as " Sweetie Pie " . That was after she had shown her

> real agenda.

>

> His reponse to her was not hostile or aggressive, but to-the-point.

>

> I'm not sure where you got that Doc is " someone who espouses a

> philosophy dependant on the personal point of view "

>

> Doc's philosophy is more of " find out what works, test it and then

> use it to " Get Shit Done " , then teach it to others " . If you want to

> learn, fine, if you don't, fine. If you do, you play by his rules.

>

> I agree with William that I think that you are throwing stones at

> Doc for reasons other then what is being talked about in this thread.

>

> I'm here to learn and get better at what I do.

> I DO know Doc and he is the MOST AMAZING and GIFTED

> MAN you will EVER meet.

> I would encourage you to do whatever you need to do to meet Doc

> in person.

>

> Lillie

>

>

>

>

>

> On Behalf Of Deb

> Saturday, September 02, 2006 6:36 PM

>

> Re: Why is it Doc's duty to take

> crap from people that attack others on

>

>

>

> Hello William, and thank you for your reply.

> I'm sorry if I wasn't clear- as I stated in my post,

> in my opinion the hostility was conveyed through the

> use of capital letters. I have never met anyone who

> didnt associate the capital letter used in an email as

> " yelling " . Certainly there is evidence of the

> writer's true feelings about the subject contained

> within his choice and execution of " nic-naming " her

> " sweety-pie " or the like.

>

> I do not know and have never met Doc, nor do I know

> the lady in question; therefore I believe I would have

> a much more objective point of view, even perhaps more

> objective than yours. It would seem that my criteria

> defining a " personal attack " is different from yours.

> I'm sorry that you felt compelled to try to puzzle out

> my reasoning, in the future just ask and I will be

> happy to tell you.

> Simply:

> I saw someone over-reacting and pointed it out.

> Ironically, I see the over-reaction as being caused by

> an over-reaction--you did mention stones I believe.

> You are more perceptive than you know.

>

> I also considered the language of her reply to be

> inappropriate, and I thought about adding that to my

> original post but I wanted to keep the focus on what I

> was addressing which was the difference in

> perspective. To add anything else would just throw up

> a lot of smoke without actually addressing the issue.

> I like to keep ahold of the subject.

>

> I agree with you that it is not " Doc's duty " to solve

> anything for anyone--it is our own

> responsibility--*however*--Doc made his answer I

> assume of his own free will and therefore; even if it

> was not his " duty " to interact I remind you that it

> *was* his choice--again, in a semi-public forum it is

> understood that people will respond. Nevertheless, I

> do not recall actually suggesting that he should or

> should not put up with anything, I feel that that

> interpretation is subject to your personal filtering.

>

> Nor did I address what Doc deems appropriate to do in

> the future, and he did not mention " remote viewing " as

> his method of testing; only the test he included and

> wondered if she could intuit out of the post.

> I do not know Doc, all I have to create my vision of

> him comes from his writing in these forums. I can

> tell you that it is my sense that he is watching this

> thread *very* carefully. Other than that, I don't

> refute anything you say he does, but I do think it's

> irrelevant to the argument which is that I thought his

> reply was a little strong.

> I remember reading something about " twisted

> perceptions " and it is my opinion that for someone who

> espouses a philosophy dependant on the personal point

> of view, there should be more sensitivity and

> awareness of conflicts of interpretation--lest they be

> themselves guilty of that which they revile.

>

> I hope this clears up your questions. Thank you again

> for your time.

> -Deborah

>

> I don't know about a firestorm but I am curious to

> where you think

> Doc was aggressive in his reply to her. I've included

> it below. I

> personally think that you are throwing stones at the

> Doc for reasons

> of your own. I've no clue what your reasons are. Doc

> does state in

> his introductory letter to all that join, " no personal

> attacks " , and

> Janice did purposefully do personal attacks.

> What Doc did was attempt to privately give her his

> guidelines for

> posting. She came back with " how many woman have you

> fucked " . That

> does seem that she viciously attacked him.

> Granted Janice has a problem. I'm curious why you

> think that it's

> Doc's fault, or Doc's duty to solve it for her? No

> where did I see

> aggression on Doc's part. Maybe you should look at

> your own mind

> reads. Talking about mind reads, you do know that Doc

> is

> accomplished at Remote viewing? Maybe he saw something

> that you do

> not see and got rid of the problem before it

> escalated?

> William

>

[Guest guest]

why do some ignorant people think that written emphasis is incorrect and is a form of YELLING?

It's their meta program. Their low self esteem makes them think written emphasis, as well as words other people use, are mean intentions and are directed at them.

 

 

 

-

kahunamaker

Monday, September 04, 2006 3:07 AM

Re: Why is it Doc's duty to take crap from people that attack others on

 

 

, "geminitrader" <geminitrader wrote:>> im not sure what is creating this communication block, I admit I'm not used to having this > much trouble getting my point across.> I'm going to try one more time, if you'll all bare with me here....Well, I'm going to do this one time.It's YOU!!!You've been a member here since Aug 13, 2006, and you don't know what this group is about.So, why don't you READ the BACK posts...So, why don't you STUDY some of MY materials...So, why don't you STUDY some of DONNA Eden's materials...So, why don't you STUDY some of DAVID Feinstein's materials...And, AFTER you've done that, feel free to post.You would THEN that AT LEAST know where the people on this group are coming from.See you THEN.ps. Group, why do some ignorant people think that written emphasis is incorrect and is a form of YELLING?

[Guest guest]

Mark,

 

I think what you wanted to say was ..

 

" From an e-mail accepted conventions stand point ... ALL CAPITALS may

be perceived as YELLING. "

 

Again, some people, for some reason, type with all cups... .

 

It's in the eye of the beholder. Different people, different strokes,

different perception, different meaning.

 

/wilson

 

, Mark Perkins

<mark wrote:

>

> From an e-mail accepted conventions stand point.....capitals is yelling.

>

> There is always an underlying goal to all communication. It is up to

the reader to determine what the message means to them and what the

goal is. Perspective is a personal thing and we, many times, do not

understand the true meaning of the e-mail. There are alos many times

when the original goal of the e-mail is to enflame. It is interesting

to see how people react to words in an e-mail. It really shows the

true self(s) of both the writer of the original mail and the responder.

>

> mark